Update as of 10.21: Before you do anything, check out the last line of my original post and then read Danielle Crittenden's piece comparing George W. Bush to Bill Clinton in "The Right's Women Problem." For the record, I don't agree with a lot of what Crittenden says or her apparent definition of feminism. That said, I think she nails how Mr. Bush is treating conservative women:

"President Bush has asked us to stand by a woman who is unqualified for the Court because he knows what's in her "heart" -- not in her head. We are asked to stand by her because, simply, she is a woman -- a "pioneer," a "glass-ceiling breaker" -- even while other more qualified women were rejected for the position (and interestingly, rejected by Harriet herself, who headed the "search" committee). That her pioneering had nothing to do with gathering expertise in constitutional law -- well, no biggie ..."

Ever since Laura Bush took to the Today Show to promote Harriet Miers' candidacy nomination for the Supreme Court, I've been craning my neck and straining my mouse-hand to try to find other conservative women who support her -- preferably conservative-y women in the law. But there's a big difference between advocating for Miers and observing the three-ring sideshow of people advocating for her nomination, as Ann Althouse points out today in her post describing "the various sorts of Miers non-critics -- they aren't really supporters, are they?"

"Look who is not talking up Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers: Some of the most prominent conservative women in the country. Their silence is telling ..."

Actually, I have to accuse Sweet's editors of dumbing down her column with their headline. Sweet does a thorough job with her reporting, quoting Phyllis Schlafly's "withering" criticism of Miers' service on the Texas Lottery Commission and Jennifer Braceras, a visiting fellow at the conservative Independent Women's Forum, who calls Miers' nomination "a foul ball."